Brock v. CVS Corporation

Background

Terrell K. Brock proceeded without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. His second amended complaint asserted claims against CVS Corporation, Leonardo Coronado, Ashley Camacho, the City of White Plains, Jose Luis Formoso, and P.O.C. Browning. The CVS defendants identified in the opinion were CVS Albany, LLC, sued as CVS Corporation, Leonardo Coronado, and Ashley Camacho.

In an earlier order, the court directed the White Plains Law Department to identify the officers involved in Brock’s April 3, 2020, and April 13, 2020, arrests. The court also extended Brock’s deadline to serve Officer Formoso and paused the time for all defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint.

The White Plains Law Department sent the court a letter and two police records. It identified Beall, Browning, and Schneider as involved in the April 3 arrest and Vanderwalker as involved in the April 13 arrest. The letter said the records did not show Officer Formoso’s involvement, but it did not provide other information about Formoso or say whether he remained employed by the White Plains Police Department. The department also had not electronically filed the records, filed proof of service, or indicated whether it had provided the materials to Brock.

The CVS defendants filed an answer and cross-claim despite the court’s order pausing responses. They also filed numerous discovery documents on the docket. The court stated that discovery documents may not be filed unless they are connected to a motion or application and explained that the federal action is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not New York’s civil-procedure rules.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered the White Plains Law Department to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Southern District of New York’s local rules, and Judge Briccetti’s individual practices in future filings.

By December 5, 2022, the White Plains Law Department had to:

- file a formal notice of appearance; - give Brock and the court written addresses where Officers Beall, Formoso, Schneider, and Vanderwalker could be served, or state whether it would accept service for them; - refile the November 16, 2022, letter and its attachments on the electronic docket; and - serve Brock with the letter and attachments and file proof of service.

By December 21, 2022, Brock had to file a third amended complaint naming all defendants, including Officers Beall, Schneider, and Vanderwalker. The court required use of the attached form and stated that the third amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the second amended complaint. After the third amended complaint was filed, the court would screen it, meaning review it under the applicable statutory requirements, and issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for newly identified defendants.

The deadline for Brock to serve Officer Formoso was stayed pending a further court order. The time for all parties to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint and the CVS defendants’ cross-claims was also stayed. The court separately ordered that the parties not file discovery documents unless they were connected to a motion or application.

Disposition and Effect

This was a procedural order. The court did not decide whether Brock’s claims were legally valid or whether any defendant was liable. It instead managed identification and service of defendants, required a new complaint, paused response deadlines, and regulated docket filings.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order was signed by United States District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.